21–30 of 69 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The vast majority of the population will be unemployed, living in cardboard boxes down by the river Who is going to consume all the goods that the machines produce? Who is going to buy these, and how? However much you might not like factory owners, they are not likely to deliberately shoot themselves in the foot.
Why do you think the factory owners care about people consuming his production? What will those people offer him for it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The vast majority of the population will be unemployed, living in cardboard boxes down by the river Who is going to consume all the goods that the machines produce? Who is going to buy these, and how? However much you might not like factory owners, they are not likely to deliberately shoot themselves in the foot.
Why do you think the factory owners care about people consuming his production? What will those people offer him for it?
If the great majority of people cannot afford to buy what your machines produce, your market is very narrow. If every producer's market is narrow, there's not enough wealth on it, and they are suddenly poor, too.
This is why most producers, especially huge corporations, go to great lengths to lower prices for another few cents.
"Yet rather than putting people out of work, this will supposedly free them up for more creative, skilled tasks, rather than subjecting them to menial, low-skilled work" This is a lie. It pretends that the factory owner will continue to pay the wages of existing employees and also the acquisition-and-maintenance of new CPS machines. Simply a lie. It pretends that the employees will be free "for more creative skilled…
Disagree slightly. I don't think it would look like "We are bringing in the TRX-1000 to do your job." Rather it will be along the lines of "Corpocom is going out of business because they can't compete in quality or price compared to Mechacom."
Small but key distinction in my mind.
"Yet rather than putting people out of work, this will supposedly free them up for more creative, skilled tasks, rather than subjecting them to menial, low-skilled work" This is a lie. It pretends that the factory owner will continue to pay the wages of existing employees and also the acquisition-and-maintenance of new CPS machines. Simply a lie. It pretends that the employees will be free "for more creative skilled…
It is a lie and it is insulting to expect that it will slip past most people (it's a "some of the people all of the time" lie). I agree with everything except your last sentence. Some alternatives to socialism: * basic income * putting teeth back in overtime laws and shortening the workweek * "Communes" that arise naturally as the rising cost of rent-seeking exceeds the falling inefficiency of small-scale production.…
There is a commune (Arcosanti) about an hour south of where I live: low environmental footprint. I would like to see more places like Arcosanti be created that are tailored to different industries: writing/editing/content creation, software development, educational centers, etc. A common theme would be a low environmental footprint with a community farm. It makes sense to cluster people working in similar industries together.
edit: people would work in/at these communes, when possible, to avoid cost and energy use of commuting to work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The vast majority of the population will be unemployed, living in cardboard boxes down by the river Who is going to consume all the goods that the machines produce? Who is going to buy these, and how? However much you might not like factory owners, they are not likely to deliberately shoot themselves in the foot.
> they are not likely to deliberately shoot themselves in the foot Like polluting the planet beyond unsustainable levels?
"Yet rather than putting people out of work, this will supposedly free them up for more creative, skilled tasks, rather than subjecting them to menial, low-skilled work" This is a lie. It pretends that the factory owner will continue to pay the wages of existing employees and also the acquisition-and-maintenance of new CPS machines. Simply a lie. It pretends that the employees will be free "for more creative skilled…
Wow dude, I've got to say that's a poor take on things. We're just beginning to see the benefits of factories like this (I can design any chip board I want online, then have it sent to me in the mail). Factories have traditionally been single purpose, but that won't last. Soon factories will be designed to be more like platforms. I design something, then I sell it, then the factory builds it, then UPS ships it. With the best factory platforms I'll be able to run an international hardware business from anywhere in the world. It's gonna be freaking sweet (mostly because I'll buy a house for what I would pay 1 years rent in SF)!
"Yet rather than putting people out of work, this will supposedly free them up for more creative, skilled tasks, rather than subjecting them to menial, low-skilled work" This is a lie. It pretends that the factory owner will continue to pay the wages of existing employees and also the acquisition-and-maintenance of new CPS machines. Simply a lie. It pretends that the employees will be free "for more creative skilled…
The most interesting part of the article seems to be in the video in which it is mentioned that part of the goal is to create easily reconfigurable assembly lines that "fit together like lego bricks". It is also mentioned in the article that many of the manufacturers that have already implemented these automated and configurable production processes are in the business of producing the machines used in other assembly…
"Yet rather than putting people out of work, this will supposedly free them up for more creative, skilled tasks, rather than subjecting them to menial, low-skilled work" This is a lie. It pretends that the factory owner will continue to pay the wages of existing employees and also the acquisition-and-maintenance of new CPS machines. Simply a lie. It pretends that the employees will be free "for more creative skilled…
I am starting enjoy imagining what would happen. Without much thinking people worry first about people losing their mundane jobs to machines, and the machine owners making bigger profits. The variables to consider run much wider than that, for example this will allow manufacturers to make the cost of their goods much lower, and undercutting that of other manufacturers. Socially owned factories will have limited value…
If I were an evil factory owner, then I would replace my workers with machines and sell the produce of my factory to those providing the raw materials and to those owning other factories that produced goods that I wanted. It wouldn't be a matter of selling to the machines, it would be a matter of creating a closed market from which the means of production; including the copyrights and design of the machines, the expertise to operate them, and the raw materials necessary to create and operate them; never exited. In effect, everyone who did not own a machine, or was not part of a creative industry that produced art that matched my aesthetics, would simply become excess to requirements.
"Yet rather than putting people out of work, this will supposedly free them up for more creative, skilled tasks, rather than subjecting them to menial, low-skilled work" This is a lie. It pretends that the factory owner will continue to pay the wages of existing employees and also the acquisition-and-maintenance of new CPS machines. Simply a lie. It pretends that the employees will be free "for more creative skilled…
If you want to actually attack the position in the article, attack the proposition that there will be as much work available in all total work places in the future. This is definitely a position that is possible to attack, but instead you assumed people have to be employed at the same places as now. Such an attack would have to start with explaining why this time is different from earlier shifts of technology that has not had this effect (in the long term. Some have caused short term unemployment spikes).